The Empire is dead, long live the army

[rodge]

With regard to the army of Bonifacius attached is a pdf of 'War and Society in the Roman World'.
There is some information in
'The end of the Roman Army in the Western Empire' , Liebschutz

Also of interest is

'Landlords and Warlords in the later Roman Empire' Whittaker.

Both essays cover some of the topics we have been discussing and are useful their overall conclusions (well, at least for discussion) and their bibliography.

[Justin Swanton]

Hi Justin, did the author, or has anyone, got a map that shows the distribution of such gold coins for the whole of Gaul or for the Western Empire?  I hate asking questions such as that, but  it would help to verify whether the distribution told us anything about the military presence or was down to some other cause.
Roy

This book should tell us what we need to know.

There remains the unfortunate formality of buying it.

[Patrick Waterson]

With regard to the army of Bonifacius attached is a pdf of 'War and Society in the Roman World'.
There is some information in
'The end of the Roman Army in the Western Empire' , Liebschutz

Also of interest is

'Landlords and Warlords in the later Roman Empire' Whittaker.

Both essays cover some of the topics we have been discussing and are useful their overall conclusions (well, at least for discussion) and their bibliography.

Thanks, Rodger: Liebschutz' observations have something for everyone.

p.271
"The integration of his [Aetius'] large forces into the palatine army created a problem which
Valentinian hoped that Majorian, who had served with Aetius, would solve (Sid. Ap. Carm. 5. 306–8)."

"In that case, his first group of successful campaigns was fought with an army which had at least a
federate core. We lack the evidence to say more."

"... it was with a force of Huns that he all but destroyed the defeated Burgundians in 436 (Prosper, Chron. 1322; Chron. Gall. 452,
118). In the same period Litorius, Aetius' second-in-command, led a force of Huns. With these he defeated the Armoricans in 435–7
(Sid. Ap. Carm. 7. 246–7), and marched through Auvergne to relieve Narbonne in 437 (ibid. 7. 248). In 439 he attacked the
Goths outside Toulouse, where he was captured by the Goths and his army lost (Prosper, Chron. 1335). Subsequently we are told
that Roman Gaul was defenceless, and Aetius helpless. It looks as if Litorius' mainly Hunnish force had made up a large part of
Aetius' army (Sid. Ap. Carm. 299 ff.).1 Of course, Huns did not make up the whole of Aetius' army in Gaul in the 430s. But this does not mean that the bulk of it consisted of Romans."

Footnote 1: But Aetius did have sufficient forces to conduct a siege and attack a fortified town (Merobaudes, Panegyric 2, p. 271–2), before negotiating peace (ibid. 272, lines 185–90, with the commentary of Clover 1971, 58–9).

"When Avitus took part in Aetius' campaign of 436 against the Burgundians, his military conduct is said to have
surpassed that of Heruli, Huns, Franks, Sarmatians, Salians and Gelonians (Sid. Ap. Carm. 7. 235). Presumably all those barbarians
were federates fighting in recognizable tribal units."

"We have miserably little information about the composition of the armies of Aetius' ceaseless campaigning. Evidence is fullest for
the campaign of 451 and the famous battle of Chalons. Now for the first time we have a reasonably full description of battle and
combatants. The king of the Goths commanded one wing, Aetius commanded the Romans on the other, and in between were Alan
federates."

Liebschutz concludes from the lack of explicit mention of Roman troops at Chalons that "the Roman force too seems to have consisted entirely of federates."

p.273
"Thus it looks as if by 450 the bulk of the field army (or armies) in the West consisted of federates. This does not mean that no regular
units survived. The contrary is likely to have been the case,2 but it may be that they were mostly tied down in garrison duties. But
when a large expeditionary force was needed it seems that it was raised for the duration of the campaign, largely from barbarians."

Footnote 2: Bachrach 1971, 33–4, suggests that the 'milites who garrisoned fortifications and the laeti who protected fortresses and served as antrustiones in centenae...as well as other remnants of the late Roman military establishment were militarily significant' in sixth century
Merovingian Gaul.

p.275
"It was the highest praise for a Roman soldier for his warlike capacities to be compared favourably with those of a barbarian (Sid. Ap. Carm. 5.
238–54, 518–32, 7. 235–40)."

Which at least indicates that there were Roman soldiers around exhibiting warlike capabilities as of the late 5th century.  Liebschutz has access to the various Chronicles and makes much use of Sidonius' Carmina, which seem not to be available online.  This latter might be fruitful if obtainable, one way or another.

[Justin Swanton]

This source (for those who can manage French) gives a descriptive list of all silver coins struck in Gaul and Italy during the second half of the 5th century and through the 6th century.

Of interest is a map giving the distribution of the silver coins (siliqua) in Gaul. It lists 4 types of coins: those with the image of an emperor, those that imitated imperial coins, those struck under the Ostrogoths, and those struck under the Burgundians and Franks. These are individual coins, incidentally, not treasure-troves of rich Romans.

Note the overwhelming concentration of imitation imperial coins north of the Seine, substantially in the region controlled by Aegidius and Syagrius. It is this region that Wickham affirms became the economic heartland of post-imperial Europe. The lack of coins south of the Seine is, admittedly, curious.

Silver coins would be used for commercial exchange and military expenditure, in what proportions is uncertain. The very least the map indicates is a thriving economy that saw itself as Roman, to the extent of striking its own Roman coinage when the regular supply failed.

[rodge]

In the second essay I mentioned, when discussing Gaul, Whittaker says (with respect to the formation of Bucellarii and Trustiones)
that:

'While the remnants of the Roman army continued to operate in the towns, just as in the eastern army, the countryside was controlled by these semi-private bands...'

and later

'but it is evident from Procopius that in Gaul some units of the regular army and leati continued to man the towns and forts, simply transferring their allegiance from Romans to Franks.'

He cites James 'The Franks'.

He then draws a comparison (after Thompson) in 5thC Noricum:

'In Noricum, as in Frankish Gaul, its is clear that the control of the countryside was in the hands of what are called robbers. But these bands were under a war leader like Ferderuchus...' (Life of Severinus).

So it may be also be worth looking at James 'The Franks', Thompson 'Romans and Barbarians: the Decline of the Roman Empire' to see what, if any, sources they cite to arrive at their conclusions.

'Life of Severinus' is at
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/severinus_02_text.htm

I have Blockley so will have a look at the any relevant references given by Liebschutz.

[aligern]

Thanks for the site of the Life of St Severinus Rodge. I had cited  the Life on the end of the garrison, it is in chapter XX. Most interested to see footnote 67 which I copy below.
Given that the troops are being supplied directly from Africa the loss of that province will have had a very direct effect.



67. 1  Saint Augustine (De Civitate Dei, xviii, 18) tells of the corn, called Retica annona, sent from Italy for the supply of the soldiers in Raetia: "dicebat . . . narrasse quae passus est, caballum se scilicet factum annonam inter alia jumenta bajulasse militibus, quae dicitur Retica, quoniam ad Retias deportatur."

68. 2  The cohors nova Batavorum, according to the Notitia Dignitatum. The town, that is, was a military station, and took its name from the garrison.

Roy

[rodge]

To add to the numismatic evidence we have here is the relevant section from Chapter 8 'Material Evidence for Northern Gaul' in MacGeorge 'Late Roman Warlords' 2002.

There is something for everyone here but how much clearer it makes things I am not sure:

NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE
In general, the numismatic date for late fifth-century Gaul is ephemeral and inconclusive, and problematic due to the practise of imitation and inadequate distribution patterns. Identification of coins also remains somewhat subjective; influenced in particular by opinions on the extent to which Gaul was still 'Roman'.

Official silver coins were no longer minted in Gaul after Jovinus (AD411-13) [Footnote: King]. The imperial mint at Arles continued to mint gold coins into the third quarter of the fifth century AD (the Trier mint ceased regular official production earlier). There are also a small number of groups of unofficial coins, varying widely in quality, and minted sporadically at different dates and places in Gaul throughout the fifth century AD [Footnote: King]. These coins were copied of official issues, using the same types, legends and in some cases also mint-marks. All the unofficial groups consist of small numbers of finds, many of which have no recorded find pot, making identification of the mint by analysis of the distribution patterns difficult [Footnote; However, where available, the distribution patterns of some of these groups of coins are striking. Coins of some groups have been found in eastern and northern France, Belgium, Scandinavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Germany and Britain –on example in Bury St. Edmunds- King; this may support the idea of a new linkage between northern Gaul and the North Sea littoral regions mentioned in Ch 5. The occasional far flung find spots may result from historical accident , or indicate that long-distance contacts and, possibly, trade continued]
One group of the unofficial coins is believed to have been produced by the Visigothic Kingdom of Aquitaine in c. AD 418-23 [Footnote: Kent. King. The basic reason for this attribution is the absence of any other likely, non-imperial, minting authority in Gaul at this date]; and other coins of a later date are also probably Visigothic. Some later unofficial coins, however, may have been minted elsewhere, by other authorities.

These include a group of gold coins (minted in the names of Valentinian III, Avitus, Majorian, Libius Sererus, Anthemius, Julis Nepos, Leo, Zeno and Anastasius) and another group of solidi and tremisses with the same reverse type. Of the second group the solidi were minted in the name of Valentinian III, Majorian and Libius Severus, and the tremisses in the names of Valentinian, Libius Severus, Zeno and Basilicus [Footnote: Kent, King, Grier and Blackburn]. Although the distribution patterns have been seen by some numismatists as evidence of Visigothic origin [Footnote: King citing Depeyrot, Callu and Barrendon] it has also been argued that some, if not all, of these coins were minted by Roman authorities [Footnote: Essentially the interpretations differ because of a disagreement in dating the coins. These coins may be contemporary with the official issues from the mint at Arles, hence dating to 454-65-King. However, the solidi of Severus could have been 'immobilised' in form, with the official series lasting into the mid 470s and therefore distributed in what had, by then, become pro-Visigothic territory- King].
These, it has been proposed, include Aetius, perhaps using the Trier mint and even Aegidius and Syagrius [Footnote: Kent, Grier and Blackburn].

Another group of unofficial coins, but of silver (of substandard workmanship and rather botched lettering), has a distribution pattern pointing to a mint in north-Eastern Gaul, possibly at Soissons [Footnote: Kent, Grierson and Blackburn. There are no mint marks other than an occasional COMOB (sometimes appearing as CONOB) used to designate a palatine mint and used by those at Trier, Arles, and Milan, amongst others].

It has been suggested that these coins might be connected to the Roman army in North Gaul. More specifically they have been associated with Aegidius and Syagrius (possibly following Aetius' practice). Another view is that they may have been produced by 'local remnants of the Roman establishment' [Footnote: King. In this category we could surly include Syagrius]. The coins are minted in the names of Majorian, Anthemius, Julius Nepos, and the eastern emperor Anastasius. (The omission of coins in the name of Libius Severus would fit with Aegidius' political stance, but this may be merely an accident of recovery.)

The group are ancestral to later; very lightweight and fragile silver coins, minted in the names of emperors down to Anastasius, on which the legends are progressively more and more blundered [Footnote: Kent, King]. These coins date to the late fifth century AD. Their distribution is similar to that of the previous group of silver coins, with several find spots along the Rhine, and the most probable origin of these coins is the Frankish kingdoms in north-east Gaul [Footnote: Kent. They may have been produced as small change or to be used as 'largesse'- Grierson and Blackburn].

If Aegidius and/or Syagrius did mint coins in northern Gaul, this would be evidence that they were breaking new ground, becoming more like independent rules [Footnote: It seems unlikely that Aegidius and Syagrius (especially) would have been using the Trier mint by this date]. That they did so is uncertain but somebody seems to have been minting unofficial coins in northern Gaul; and the existence of these coinages testifies, at the very least, to increasing fragmentation and local autonomy [Footnote: The continued imitation of imperial issues perhaps shows a conservative adherence to the old imperial forms, among both Roman and barbarian-unless this was merely the result of inertia and practical constraints.]
The coins may have been used to facilitate the raising of local taxes, payment of military forces [Footnote: King] or of tribute and protection money [Footnote: Although it is difficult to see why payments of this nature would need to be in coin.]. This may also be connected to the need to legitimise the power of new authorities.

[aligern]

Justin would it be fair to say that the map of silver coin finds that you give would. if we acceted their military connection,  suggest that Aegidius and Syagrius are operating North of the Seine and not South of it where there appear to be no coin finds?
Roy

[Justin Swanton]

Justin would it be fair to say that the map of silver coin finds that you give would. if we acceted their military connection,  suggest that Aegidius and Syagrius are operating North of the Seine and not South of it where there appear to be no coin finds?
Roy

I doubt it Roy. We have several unconnected sources that put Syagrius's southern frontier on the Loire, and the Seine-Loire region is Armorica. There are plenty of solidi/tremissi north of the Loire from Syagrius's time. There must be a reason for the dearth of silver coins, but what it is I have no idea. It is easier to tie solidi to military use than siliquas, as solidi were used only for big expenditures like buildings (military or civil) and units' pay. Siliquas were of a small enough value to be usable for some commercial transactions.

In my novel, by the way, I have the protagonists using siliquas and follises, but not solidi. A solidus was equivalent to about 2-3 months' pay for a soldier. That's something like 4,000 pounds in contemporary terms. A siliqua was worth 1/24 of a solidus, something like 160 pounds. You could just about take that to the marketplace. Keep in mind that real values and prices of products then and now are not really comparable.

[Justin Swanton]

I'm beginning to wonder if we haven't phrased the whole question about a regular Roman army in the wrong way. We are looking for the (non)existence of a field army as proof that the late Roman administration in northern Gaul could or could not keep up a professional military. Field armies, however, were a Constantinian invention. Here is a quote from Wikipedia (for what it's worth):

The main change in structure from the 2nd-century army was the establishment of large escort armies (comitatus praesentales), typically containing 20-30,000 top-grade palatini troops. These were normally based near the imperial capitals: (Constantinople in the East, Milan in the West), thus far from the Empire's borders. These armies' primary function was to deter usurpations, and they usually campaigned under the personal command of their emperors.

By the time one gets to Aegidius and northern Gaul, the motivation to have a comital field army is gone. There is no longer an emperor who fears usurpation. Thus the professional troops can go back to what they were doing in the first centuries of the empire - guarding the borders. This means that the 'other Roman soldiers' of Procopius were the field army, reverted to the frontier duties of its forebears.

This raises the question of who exactly the Arborychi/Armoriciani/men of Armorica province were. I have an idea about that, but perhaps for a later post. (we are, after all, busy taking a break from the thread for a few days  )

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks for the site of the Life of St Severinus Rodge. I had cited  the Life on the end of the garrison, it is in chapter XX. Most interested to see footnote 67 which I copy below.
Given that the troops are being supplied directly from Africa the loss of that province will have had a very direct effect.

Um ... actually they are being supplied directly from Italy.

67. 1  Saint Augustine (De Civitate Dei, xviii, 18) tells of the corn, called Retica annona, sent from Italy for the supply of the soldiers in Raetia: "dicebat . . . narrasse quae passus est, caballum se scilicet factum annonam inter alia jumenta bajulasse militibus, quae dicitur Retica, quoniam ad Retias deportatur."

68. 2  The cohors nova Batavorum, according to the Notitia Dignitatum. The town, that is, was a military station, and took its name from the garrison.

I like the way we are coming up with useful information: it does look as if we are developing a picture.  (My own opinions are purposely on hold as the picture develops - the picture matters more than they do.)

[aligern]

De Civitate Dei is written in the 410s,  certainly before the Vandals take Africa. At this point huge amounts of grain are going from Africa to Italy. So, Zi submit the Raetian garrisons. are getting African grain.
Let us suppose they actually got Italian grain. Once Africa was lost that grain would have been held in Italy and o the consequences for supply of the. army would have been the same.

Justin, you make a nice point about the field army becoming a garrison army that can be called out, more like the armies of the 1st century AD. I am not at all sure that the main reason for the creation of mobile armies is the need to have a central force to resist usurpations. I suggest that. they grow out of the third century crisis as a result of the emperors campaigning constantly and thus field armies evolving. By the IVth century they are the norm because the strategy of the Empire is, much as Luttwak says, a strategy of defense in depth in which the field armies were there to riposte to barbarian incursions. In the Eastern Empire the field armies survive so we do not see a change in strategy there. In the West the field army survives in Italy where it is composed largely of foederati.

However, pretty well everyone actively debating here could unite around Aegidius  and Syagrius having armies that were composed of soldiers from garrisons, foederati, laeti and, of course his own buccellarii.  What that is not is an army of Palatine elite units with mounted Sagittarii, Illyricani,Scutarii etc. as has been suggested.

Roy

[Jim Webster]

It could be a detachment of a town militia that was covering a crossing place within the town's territory, as you say, it might be a fort, or a fortified dwelling of some sort) it could even be the town itself.
But we needn't be talking of more than a handful of men, remember in the Late Empire units were often split up in penny packets guarding a number of places.

It is the designation rather than the order of battle which stands out, and similarly with Procopius' Arborychi.

When dealing with these single-source mentions, there are always plenty of casual explanations for the unusual phenomenon, but what for me stands out is the fact that the phenomenon attracted the special notice of the author in the first place.  Procopius was undoubtedly familiar with city militias which had their own standards, but he takes the time to comment upon the curious fellows in northern Gaul who preserved Roman military traditions, or what Procopius understood to be such.  This deserves reflection on our part.

Procopius may have been familiar with city militia but there is no evidence he ever met or saw these people. He is reporting what he has been told, perhaps by someone who was reporting what he has been told.
On the other hand there is no reason why a unit existing as city militia should not keep its name. From memory the limitani in Egypt kept their unit names to the end

Let us begin by asking: with what did Aetius fight Bonifacius and Bonifacius Aetius?  We can take things from there.

It's a battle I've tried to track down. As far as I can make out the two generals may merely have had their Bucellarii, in the case of Boniface his seem to mainly have been Vandals, and in the case of Aetius, Huns.
Rebuilding the army for Aetius was easy. He just fled to the Huns

Jim

edited to add that Boniface wasn't the first to invade from Africa, see 'The Revolt of Heraclian',
Stewart Irvin Oost Classical Philology, Vol. 61, No. 4. (Oct., 1966), pp. 236-242.

But considering the size of force that Boniface could raise, it is unlikely that regular soldiers, born and serving in Africa for their entire careers, are going to abandon their homes, land, families in the face of constant vandal encroachment. That is one reason why I'm happy with the suggestion that he just brought his Bucellarii

Bonifacius may well have brought only his bucellarii from Africa, but prior to the battle he had been appointed Magister Militum and was in a position to collect and use the Army of Italy.  It is inconceivable that he did not do so.[/quote]

He might have tried, but until he won he was just another general (and doubtless in a lot of peoples eyes a rebel general), so I could declare with equal force that it was inconceivable that they would join him. It is equally conceivable that they joined the equally legitimate Aetius, and equally conceivable that they stood aside and let them fight it out before accepting orders from the victor.[/quote]

Literature of the period has a fine tradition of allusion, and I suggest that this is just another allusion, after all, you can call the dawn rosy-fingered and refer to the sea as wine-dark without intending to describe the weather. Among his contemporaries the allusion would merely be a way of displaying erudition, it's far too slight a thing to build a field army on.

Sidonius does use literary allusion, but when he does so it is evident, e.g. Letter V.7.5:

"Let them but scent from afar a rusty purse, and you will see them fix on it the eyes of Argus, Briareus' hands, the Sphinx's claws; they will bring into play the perjuries of Laomedon, the subtleties of Ulysses, Sinon's wiles; they will stick to it with the staunchness of Polymestor and the loyalty of a Pygmalion."

When he writes about soldiers and pay he means soldiers and pay.

I'm sorry, but you find the 'classical allusion' evident, but you obviously don't find the scriptural allusion evident. :-)

Jim

(At the moment our broadband is playing up, we only have it before about 8am, the minute the rest of the world wakes up and starts using it, ours dies :-()

[Patrick Waterson]

Procopius may have been familiar with city militia but there is no evidence he ever met or saw these people. He is reporting what he has been told, perhaps by someone who was reporting what he has been told.
On the other hand there is no reason why a unit existing as city militia should not keep its name. From memory the limitani in Egypt kept their unit names to the end

Procopius was Belisarius' secretary, and I wonder if he had been collecting information about territories beyond Italy for future reconquest (prior to the surrender of Ravenna nobody knew that Belisarius would be recalled and the reconquest would effectively stop there).  This would suggest he had been collecting material for what we might consider an 'intelligence summary', not just recording idle gossip.  He would have been careful to get it right, otherwise he would have some explaining to do to Belisarius once they got that far!

I also rather doubt that he went through the length and breadth of Italy and never met city militia, not even during the siege of Rome. 

Bonifacius may well have brought only his bucellarii from Africa, but prior to the battle he had been appointed Magister Militum and was in a position to collect and use the Army of Italy.  It is inconceivable that he did not do so.

He might have tried, but until he won he was just another general (and doubtless in a lot of peoples eyes a rebel general), so I could declare with equal force that it was inconceivable that they would join him. It is equally conceivable that they joined the equally legitimate Aetius, and equally conceivable that they stood aside and let them fight it out before accepting orders from the victor.

Regrettably that is factually incorrect: Bonifacius had just been appointed Magister Militum by Valentinian III, the reigning Western Emperor, and you cannot get more legitimate than that!

(At the moment our broadband is playing up, we only have it before about 8am, the minute the rest of the world wakes up and starts using it, ours dies :-()

You have my sympathy on that - for some reason my internet connection breaks up quite a bit these days, but not that badly.

De Civitate Dei is written in the 410s,  certainly before the Vandals take Africa. At this point huge amounts of grain are going from Africa to Italy. So, I submit the Raetian garrisons. are getting African grain.
Let us suppose they actually got Italian grain. Once Africa was lost that grain would have been held in Italy and o the consequences for supply of the. army would have been the same.

Sadly have to disagree: the main reason for importation of grain from Africa seems to have been to feed the population of Rome.  Following the events of AD 410 there is rather less of a Roman population to feed (and it continues to decline thereafter).  Following the loss of Africa there are plenty of vineyards and olive groves in Sicily and Italy that can be put under cultivation to grow corn if it is really needed.  By AD 474 or so it is even possible to spare corn to relieve a famine in Gaul (as previously mentioned in a letter of Sidonius).

I think this business of Africa goes and the corn economy goes with it is a red herring, but  do we have any actual studies showing corn consumption, importation and use?

[rodge]

The Wikipedia entry for Aegidius quotes Hydatius 218 on this point;

Hydatius 218 in translation says:
218. Against Aegidius, Count and Master of the Soldiers, a man both recommended by repute and pleasing well the Lord by good deeds, Frederic the brother of King Theodoric had been struggling, with these men against those men in the province Armorica, and having been overcome, was killed.'

No mention of fighting with Childeric, in fact no mention of Childeric at all.
I cannot find reference to any cooperation between Aegidius and Childeric in any source.

Which, if true.....needs double-checking

Justin, I found the Latin for the source references (other than Gregory) for Orleans. They are at the bottom of the wiki article on the battle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orleans_(463)

Patrick kindy translated them:

Sources for the Battle of Orleans 463

Hydatius:
Adversus Aegidium comitem utriusque militiae, virum, ut fama commendat, Deo bonis operibus complacentem, in Armoricana provincia Fretiricus frater Theuderici regis insurgens, cum his cum quibus fuerat, superatus occiditur.

Hydatius (longwinded):
His opponent Aegidius, both the Count of Soldiers and a man of great reputation [literally: commended by fame], pleasing to God through his good works, defeated and killed the revolting Frederic, brother of Theoderic the king, who was there with his own (?) in Armorica province.

Trans. Waterson

(Note: 'cum his cum quibus fuerat' looks nonsensical, literally 'with this with whom [plural] he was'.  'Revolting' (insurgens) means 'rebelling'.)


Gallic Chronicle 511:
Fredericus frater Theuderici regis pugnans cum Francis occiditur iuxta Ligerim.

Gallic Chronicle 511 (concise)
Frederic brother of Theoderic the king was killed fighting with [or against] the Franks near the Loire.

Trans. Waterson

Marius Aventicensis
His consulibus pugna facta est inter Aegidium et Gothos inter Ligerum et Ligericinum iuxta Aurelianis ibique interfectus est Fredericus rex Gothorum.

Marius Aventicensis (straightforward)
In this consulship there was a battle between Aegidius and the Goths between the Loir and the Loire near Orleans and there Frederic king of the Goths was killed.

Trans. Waterson

The Loir it is a tributary of the Loire, running north of it.